DUCK STAMP SALES 
Immediately after the 1962 waterfowl sea- 
son, a mail questionnaire survey was con- 
ducted on the subject of restrictive duck 
hunting regulations. Names and addresses of 
approximately 5,000 hunters were selected 
systematically from hunters who filled out a 
hunter address card for the Bureau’s mail 
questionnaire survey of waterfowl hunters 
when they purchased a duck stamp in 1960. 
A question in this survey asked the hunter if 
he purchased a duck stamp in 1961 and 1962. 
The questionnaires that these hunters had re- 
turned as part of the 1960 mail questionnaire 
survey furnished information on their re- 
ported hunting activity and waterfowl kill dur- 
ing the 1960 season. This information was 
available for 2,228, or 80 percent, of 2,785 
respondents. Of these, 2087 furnished com- 
plete information on whether they purchased 
duck stamps in 1961 and 1962. Thus, a direct 
comparison could be made betweenthe hunter 
activity and kill in 1960 and whether the 
hunters purchased duck stamps in recent 
years (table J-1, p. 175), Atabulation of duck 
stamp sales by States and flyways for 1961- 
62 and 1962-63 is given in table J-2, (p. 176). 
it is readily apparent in all four flyways 
that it was the hunter who was most success- 
ful in 1960 who continued to purchase duck 
stamps in 1961 and 1962. Infact, the hunters 
who continued to hunt in 1961 and 1962 killed 
about three times more ducks a hunter during 
the 1960 season than did the hunters who 
dropped out. The greater kill by the hunters 
who continued to buy duck stamps was because 
they hunted more times during the 1960 season. 
rather than a higher daily kill. 
~ae WATERFOWL STATUS AND UTILIZATION 
ON NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES 
Data supplied by Winston Banko and 
W. B. Stiles, Branch of Wildlife Refuges, 
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife 
In these compilations showing waterfowl utili- 
zation of national wildlife refuge habitat, it 
will be noted that most of the States com- 
monly assigned to the respective Flyways are 
represented. It should be pointed out, how- 
ever, that the listing of national wildlife 
refuges therein is far from complete, and 
some word of explanation as tothe reason for 
inclusion of some areas and the exclusion of 
others is inorder (table K-1, pp. 177 and 178), 
The primary purpose ofthe compilations is 
to show the number of use-days accruing on 
those refuges wherein duck and goose figures 
(either singly or in combination) exceed 1 
million. Although it is not to be expected 
that southern refuge areas would show size- 
able waterfowl breeding populations and pro- 
ll 
duction, such numbers as do occur and are 
known are included in the tabulations. Some 
of the more northern refuges where water- 
fowl nesting is normally more abundant are 
omitted for the reason that overall useis be- 
low the standard referred to above, Finally, 
it should also be pointed out that drought, 
quantity and quality of food, vagaries of 
weather, shortcomings and limitations in 
census procedures, as well as other factors, 
operating either singly or in combination, may 
compromise and/or make for considerable 
differences in waterfowl data gathered on 
individual refuges over a period of years. 
From information gathered over the past 
5 years, it is obvious that overall waterfowl 
use of national wildlife refuges is greatest by 
far for refuges located in the Pacific Flyway 
States, followed in order by those in States 
comprising the Mississippi, Central and 
Atlantic Flyways. 

